1. Proposal Writing: for Poverty and Environment; DRR, Resilience and Livelihoods in Afghanistan Andrew Scanlon, UNEP AFG 8 th of December, 2015 andrew.Scanlon@unep.org

2. Climate Change and Hazards Exposure/Vulnerability Hazard is just one aspect of risk!

3. Climate Change Decreasing agricultural productivity Vulnerability Increase of Hazards Poverty Disaster Simplified scheme Climate Change increases vulnerability

4. Observed Changes in Afghanistan´s Climate Results of reanalysis product (GSWP3):

5. Warming signal is consistent with large scale global observations

6. There are strong regional differences Difference between 1981-2010 and 1951-1980

7. There are strong regional differences Difference between 1981-2010 and 1951-1980

8. There are strong regional differences Difference between 1981-2010 and 1951-2015

9. Future Climate Change in Afghanistan Regional Climate Models Projections for Afghanistan CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment) 9 Global-Regional Model combinations 0.5° grid Daily 2 emission scenarios

10. 3. Future Climate Change in Afghanistan Temperature

11. Spring precipitation

12. Heavy precipitation

13. Approaches Quantative science combined with local stakeholders for a risk assessment Better scientific basis INGO facilitator betw govt agencies and communities Interdisciplinary Economic Analysis (long term benefits) Regulatory Convening the right stakeholders Livelihoods restoration Roundtables, training Building into existing projects to other DRR, livelihoods and ecosystems Multi-stakeholder approaches Participatory comm approach

14. Perfect project summary Grassroots driven- bottom up Multi-stakeholder participation and support Govt, private sector, NGOs Comm strategy between stakeholders and external stakeholders Clear exit strategy Clear objectives Long-term political buy-in Manage conflict of interest Improved livelihood and ecosystem resilience Ecosystem baseline and monitoring Perfect data about everything Ensure ownership Sustainable long term impacts Dynamic Monitoring and Evaluation Understanding the nature of the problems Clear concepts for every part Transparency through independent party, responsibility, commitment Traditional knowledge

15. Perfect project summary, cont Results based Balanced Unlimited funding SMART objectives Sufficient time Adaptive Management Flexibility Interdisciplinary Strong research component and partners Good practices and guidelines Perfect outcomes! Upscalable results Problem-oriented Disseminated results and community owned Short, Medium and Long term impacts Paris declaration on aid effectiveness, aligned with national policies and priorities Ecosysyem management needs to be integrated with the ministries Possible entry point for integrating ecosystem concerns in humanitarian projects and build back better.

16. Knowledge, tools and methods Multi-sectoral govt cooperation Interdisciplinary Community participation Multiple stakeholders Dialogue between scientists and communities Communication between stakeholders Nagging and pushing stakeholders (strategic repetition, evidence-based advocacy) Building on existing work Science based Ecosystem and livelihoods link Local and national government Land-use planning Degraded Land and drought management Spatial analysis, the geographic approach Statistical analysis Participatory methods Ecological restoration

17. Obstacles Shifted Objectives Data Availability Expertise and Cost Time and Money Changes in donor policy Differences in data Long-term risk reduction and local buy-in Benefits taking a long time to manifest Guiding policy makers on best tools and approaches Working with traumatised communities Funding issues Communiction- stakeholders and within govt Terminology between scientists and other Coordination

18. Obstacles, contd Donor funding post-disaster makes it difficult to advocate for eco- system-related funding Environment specific projects and funding (GEF) often do not have a DRR component Ecosystem management is not always part of immediate post-disaster concerns as it is considered more long term Ecosystem damage is often not reported Perceptions and awareness about ecosystems is often not there PDNAs (ECLAC) are often not used Whether ecosystem concerns are included may depend on the type of hazard Dichotomy between humanitarian and prevention type projects – however there is a shift towards early recovery and build back better Can gain Political points with humanitarian projects and funding Guidance on mitigation and prevention is not adequate and specific and links with ecosystem based management and risk assessments Risk assessments, values and upscaling integrated projects w. Ecosystems is difficult Lack of government capacities to deal with these issues Lack of hard evidence to establish critical linkages for need to include ecosystem based strategies for DRR

19. Driving Forces Hazard Affected communities Livelihoods Improvement and rehabilitation Sustainable livelihoods Local Needs Policies (international agenda) (both pos and neg) Water quality Hazard events INGOs Threat to infrastructure Govt Multiple uses of ecosystem, entices more involvement Corporate Agenda

20. Cost effectiveness of ecosystem services Holistic approaches Increased perceptions of risk Memory of recent disaster Increased risk in exposed areas Ecosystem degradation Climate change and increased awareness for forcing more integration of DRR and ecosystem management Actors and policies Science influence on policies Environmental restoration Disaster funds available International pressures Paradigm shift towards prevention and mitigation- ecosystem part of this ISDR Hyogo framework for action- Action Point 4 – Sustainable development

21. Expected Achievements Increase in local awareness Locally driven process Interagency cooperation and collaboration Changed mindset of local authorities and buy-in Influence on the govt planning process Sustainable water management Upstream-Downstream stakeholder dialogue Acceptance to include ecosystems in DRR project Traditional knowledge Restoration of ecosystems, (Shelter belts, river systems) Enhanced capacity to enhane forest capacity Local govt was influenced Improved human security Managed and adapted for climate Joint action plans Reduced floods Improvement of ministerial capacity

22. Expected Achievement, contd Enabling conditions for ideal risk management Agreement among actors Risk perceptions More awareness about watershed management strategies Improved relations betw stakeholders Identified contributions to resilience and drivers of risk Agroforestry intro Comm-based NRM Water and sanitation projects River protection, high-alpine protection Science papers More effective rangeland management Institutionalising the processes